A. Pasayat, J.
1. Dispute questioning election of a person as a Member of a Samiti held under the Orissa Panchayat Samiti Act, 1959 (in short, the 'Act') is to be filed within fifteen days after the day on which the result of the election was announced, in terms of Section 44-8 of the Act. However, on the petitioner satisfying the Election Commissioner that sufficient cause existed for failure to present the petition within the stipulated period, the Commissioner may condone such failure. As provided in Sub-section (2) of Section 44-6 of the Act, the Subordinate Judge having jurisdiction over the place at which the office of the Samiti is situated is the Election Commissioner. In the case at hand the learned Decided on 17th Jan. 1994, Subordinate Judge, First Court, Cuttack (hereinafter referred to as the 'Election Commissioner') held that Kulamani Guru (opp. party No. 6) satisfied him about existence of sufficient cause for delay in presenta- tion of the petition. According to the petitioner, the conclusions of the Election Commissioner are patently unreasonable, and did not flow from appropriate consideration of the materials placed.
2. Filtering out the unnecessary details, the factual position is as follows :
Petitioner Satyanarayan Samant was elected in respect of Kiapal Gram Panchayat. while Satrughna Parida (opp.party No. 7) was elected in respect of Puincha Grama Panchayat. Results of the election were declared on 26-5-1992. In terms of Sub-section (1) of Section 44-B, the election dispute if any ought to have been filed on or before 9-6-1992, In reality the same was filed by Kulamani Guru (opp. party No. 6) on 30-10-1992. Admittedly, therefore, there was a delay of 139 days. According to Kulamani, on account of ailment he was prevented from filing the election petition in time. In support of the plea of ailment, an entry in the out-patient register of Banki Subdivisional Hospital dated 2-4-1992 was relied upon. The relevant entry No. 4975 indicates that he was suffering from fever with hepatitis and toximia. Dr. Ganga- dhar Paramguru was examinedd as PW 1 in support of the plea of ailment. He stated that Kulamani was under his treatment between the period from 2-4-1992 to 29-10-1992. The petitioner (opp. party No. 5 before the Election Commissioner) took a positive stand that Kulamani was in fact not ailing, and had filed nomination on 27-4-1992 for the post of Sarpanch of Puincha Grama Panchayat, and also filed the withdrawal form on 21-5-1992. On 27-9-1992 he has present in the Loka Adalat held at Kalapathar College, Not only that, he was also looking after the agricultural operations. The entry No. 4975 in the register was labelled to be a manipulated one, as there were two entries having the same number on 2-4-1992. Certain words were inserted in different ink in the entry on which reliance was placed. In other words the case of the petitioner was that the ailment was a myth, and without any sufficient cause there was delay in presentation of the petition.
3. The Election Commissioner, however, accepted the plea of ailment, condoned the delay and took up the petition for adjudication.
4. In support of the application Mr. Parida has strenuously urged that a bare look at the evidence of Kulamani (opp. party No. 6) goes to show that he was not ailing at all much less to render him Immobile. He had himself accepted to have participated in the process of election having filed nomination and withdrawal form on 27-4-1992 and 21-5-1992 respectively. He also accepted that he was carrying on agricultural operations.
With reference to PW 1's evidence it is submitted that clearly entry No. 4975 was written in different inks, but the Ejection Commissioner did not hold it to be so. The learned counsel for Kulamani has, however, supported the conclusions of the Election Commissioner and has submitted that in matters of limitation a liberal approach is called for. According to him, the conclusions of the Election Commissioner have been arrived at after analysis of factual aspects and interference is not called for.
5. Chapter Vl-A of the Act deal3 with election disputes. Section 44-A provides no election of a person as a member of a Samiti held under the Act shall be called in question except by an election petition presented in accordance with the provisions of the Chapter. The petition is to be presented within fifteen days after the days on which the result of the election was announced, as prescribed Under Section 44-B. However, second proviso to Sub-section (1) of Section 44-B authorises condonation of failure to do so within stipulated time on the petitioner satisfying the Election Commissioner about existence of sufficient cause for the same.
The expression 'sufficient cause' has not been defined either in the Act or the Limitation Act, 1963. It means a cause, which is beyond the control of the party invoking the aid of the provision authorising condonation. The test, whether or not a cause is sufficient, is to see whether it is a bonafide cause in as much as nothing shall be taken to be done bona fide or in good faith which is not. done with due care and attention. Subject to the above test, the words 'sufficient cause' should receive liberal construction so as to advance substantial justice. The words 'sufficient cause' are very wide and comprehensive in their meaning and so no attempt should be made to define precisely or rigidly their scope. The Legislature has in its wisdom left unfettered discretion on the facts of each case with object of furthering substantial justice. As was observed in the Full Bench decision in Krishna v. Chathapoan ; ILR 18 Madras 269, in a passage, which has become classic, the words 'sufficient cause'' should receive a liberal construction so as to advance substantial justice when n6 negligence nor inaction nor want of bona fide is imputable to the applicant. But the discretion of the Court has to be exercised judicially. Any fanciful or apparently false explanation should not be the basis for condonation. The fundamental principle relating to prescription of period of limitation is to induce claimants to be piompt in claiming relief. Unexplained delay or laches can hardly be encour- aged or countenanced. The passage was quoted with approval in Dinabandhu Sahu v. Jadumani Mangaraj and Ors. ; AIR 1954 SC 411. Normally speaking this Court would be slow to substitute its own exercise of discretion for that of the Court below, but when it is shown that the said Court had, in exercising its discretion, acted unreasonably or capriciously or had ignored relevant facts and adopted an unjudicial approach, then this Court would be entitled-and perhaps also bund-to interfere with the lower Courts' discretion. If the Court below does not exercise its discretion at all or exercises its discretion capriciously, whimsically and arbitrarily or without proper legal material to support its decision, this Court can interfere.
6. Though it cannot be gainsaid that while dealing with applications for condonation of delay, too much insistence on technicalities would be counter-productive, at the same time, where statute prescribes a short period and the election of a person elected under any statute is questioned, the party seeking condonation of delay has to present a plausible and acceptable case, in support of the plea. Undisputedly the delay in the case at hand is nearly about five months. The plea was that of ailment from fever with hepatitis and toximia. The very fact that two entries of an identical nunnber appear in the out-patient register is a suspicious circumstance. We might have considered it to be accidental or coincidental, had not there been an entry with the words jaundice, enteric fever' written in different ink. Though the statement of the doctor (PN 1) was that it was not in different ink, which the Election Commissioner accepted, we have examined the document ourselves. It is crystal clear that the words were written in different ink, Therefore, we are not prepared to accept that the two entries of simitar number are merely accidental or coincidental. Added to that we find that the plea of ailment has not been substantiated by Kulamani. He claimed that he was unable to move from 2-4-1992 to 29-10-1992. He has himself accepted that he was looking after agricultural operations during that period, had filed nomination on 27-4-1992 for the post of Sarpanch, Puincha Grama Panchayat, had filed withdrawal form on 21-5 1992. Interestingly the doctor said that he had advised Kulamani to resume normal duties from 30-10-092 onwards, but the petition itself was verified on 29-10-1992 at Cuttack, The plea of ailment is not bona fide. Manipulation of hospital records was made. All these leave no manner of doubt that Kulamani failed to substantiate his plea of ailment in order to warrant condonation of delay in presentation of the election petition. The impugned order dated 25-2-1993 (Annexure-7) is accordingly set aside. The election petition before the Election Commissioner is to be dismissed.
The writ application is allowed, but in the circumstances without any order as to costs.
S.K. Mohanty, J.
I agree.